英國自古與歐洲道不同

If you walk down Piccadilly in London you will see one European flag — on the Maltese High Commission — whereas on the continent it seems to be everywhere: at prime ministerial press conferences, on public buildings and on car number plates.

沿著倫敦皮卡迪利大街(Piccadilly)步行，你會看到一面歐盟旗幟——懸掛在馬耳他高級專員公署(Maltese High Commission)——而在歐洲大陸上，歐盟旗幟似乎無處不在：在總理的新聞發(fā)布會上，在公共建筑上，在汽車號牌上。

British people do not display enthusiasm for Europe , and not just because of its very boring flag. The concept of European identity arouses puzzlement. The great variety — of languages, ethnic groups, religions and literatures — between and even within each country gives the lie to the idea that from Cyprus to Finland we all have a common identity. One of the leaders of the Italian Risorgimento, the 19th-century movement that led to a unified Italy, said: “We have made Italy; now we must make the Italians.” That statement is echoed in modern claims that, even if there is no European identity at the moment, we need to forge one in the future.

英國人并不顯露出對歐洲的熱情，這不僅僅是因為歐洲的旗幟非常乏味。歐洲身份認(rèn)同的概念引起了困惑。在不同國家間，乃至一國之內(nèi)，語言、民族、宗教和文學(xué)的多樣性表明，從塞浦路斯到芬蘭我們都有一個共同身份的理念是虛假的。讓意大利走向統(tǒng)一的19世紀(jì)意大利復(fù)興運(yùn)動(Risorgimento)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者之一說過：“我們已經(jīng)創(chuàng)造了意大利;現(xiàn)在我們必須創(chuàng)造意大利人。”這個說法在當(dāng)代的主張中得到了呼應(yīng)——這個主張是，即使現(xiàn)在沒有形成歐洲身份認(rèn)同，我們也需要在未來建立這樣的認(rèn)同。

As a historian, I am more interested in trying to make sense of the past than in boldly predicting the future. I share the disappointment of many that the referendum campaign has descended to wild guesses about what might happen to the economy or national security if we leave. Surely we should be looking closely at past economic performance within the EU, which is hardly a comforting story: poor growth, a declining share of world trade and a currency that hobbles from crisis to crisis.

作為一名歷史學(xué)家，比起大膽的預(yù)測未來，我對嘗試?yán)斫膺^去更感興趣。英國是否留在歐洲的公投活動的宣傳淪落為對我們離開歐洲，經(jīng)濟(jì)或者國家安全會發(fā)生什么的胡亂猜測，我和很多人一樣，都對此感到失望。我們總該仔細(xì)看看英國在歐盟(EU)中的過往經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)，很難說這令人欣慰：增長疲弱，在世界貿(mào)易中的份額下滑，貨幣在一場場危機(jī)中艱難前行。

The British government, in the booklet it sent to every household, decided it would set out the facts, while recommending that the UK should remain inside a reformed EU. In fact, all that has been reformed is the relationship between Britain and the other member states, when it is the whole structure that needs a radical overhaul. A booklet setting out the real facts would not be a bad idea, for the facts are historical and easy to put together: economic performance; the functions of the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; qualified majority voting; the true cost of membership (a warning to both sides to get this right); the arrangements for vetting arrivals from the border-free Schengen area; trade agreements with leading countries; and the membership and competencies, if one can call them that, of the European Court of Justice.

在發(fā)放給每個家庭的小冊子里，英國政府?dāng)喽ㄋ梢粤谐鍪聦?，同時建議英國應(yīng)該留在一個經(jīng)過改革的歐盟中。事實上，唯一改革的是英國和其他歐盟成員國的關(guān)系，而需要徹底改革的是整體架構(gòu)。一本羅列真正事實的小冊子不會是個糟糕的主意，因為這些都是歷史性事實，也很容易匯編：經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn);歐盟委員會(European Commission)、歐盟部長理事會(Council of Ministers)和歐洲議會(European Parliament)的職能;特定多數(shù)表決制;歐盟成員國身份的真實成本(告誡兩個陣營都要搞清楚這一點(diǎn));對從無國界申根區(qū)赴英人士的審查安排;與主要國家的貿(mào)易協(xié)定;歐洲法院(European Court of Justice)的成員國身份及權(quán)限(如果可以這么說的話)。

Without this basic information voters will be going into the booths armed with their prejudices, presumptions and (the In campaign hopes) their fears for the future. Yet there are also, even from this historical perspective, plenty of intangibles. What was meant by ever-closer union? In the minds of the creators of the common market it meant the creation of a United States of Europe in which all would become citizens of a single polity with a common president and a common defence and foreign policy, quite apart from economic integration.

沒有這些基本信息，選民們會帶著偏見、假設(shè)和(那些留歐運(yùn)動人士所希望的)對未來的恐懼走進(jìn)投票間。然而，即使是從歷史的角度來看，還存在很多無形的事物。一個日益緊密的聯(lián)盟意味著什么?在共同市場的創(chuàng)造者心中，這意味著創(chuàng)造一個“歐羅巴合眾國”，除了經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化以外，所有人都會成為一個單一政體下的公民，這個政體將由一位共同的總統(tǒng)統(tǒng)治，實施共同的防衛(wèi)和外交政策。

Then there is the question of sovereignty. Every state compromises this to some extent. Most concessions of sovereignty are very minor: the presence of French border police at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras, for instance. Membership of Nato certainly involves commitments that constrain our absolute freedom in foreign policy; but, as General Charles de Gaulle showed, one can walk away from Nato, though I would certainly not advise doing so.

然后是主權(quán)的問題。每個國家都在這個問題上做出了不同程度的讓步。大多數(shù)讓步是非常輕微的：比如，法國在“歐洲之星”列車位于倫敦圣潘克拉斯(St Pancras)的終點(diǎn)站派駐了邊境警察。北約(Nato)的成員國身份必然涉及限制我們在外交政策方面的絕對自由的承諾;但就如法國戴高樂將軍(General Charles de Gaulle)的舉動表明的，國家可以退出北約，盡管我肯定不會建議這樣做。

The ceding of sovereignty to the EU is of an entirely different order. Here, legislation is being imposed from outside, and, although the British government has some say in its formulation, it does not determine its final form. In matters of interpretation, it has to accede to the judgments of the ECJ.

將主權(quán)讓渡給歐盟就是一種完全不同的情況了。在這種情況下，法規(guī)是從外部強(qiáng)制實施的，而且盡管英國政府在法規(guī)制定中有一定的發(fā)言權(quán)，但它并不能決定其最終形態(tài)。在法律解釋方面，英國必須認(rèn)同歐洲法院的判決。

Here is a court composed, one hopes, of worthy lawyers, mostly trained in a very different legal tradition from that of the UK. Common law is uncommon among members of the EU. It is rooted in history — it is not just a product of English history but is itself history, the creative use of precedent. It also underlies our peculiar constitutional arrangements: no written constitution and a book of parliamentary practice, Erskine May’s Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, that is, remarkably, merely an unofficial guide written in 1844 and then updated.

這個法院是由值得尊敬的律師組成的(希望如此)，他們大多數(shù)人是在一種與英國截然不同的法律傳統(tǒng)下受到培訓(xùn)的。英國的普通法系在歐盟成員國中并不普通。這種法系植根于歷史之中——它不僅僅是英國歷史的產(chǎn)物，其本身就是歷史，是對先例的創(chuàng)造性運(yùn)用。英國普通法系也突顯出我們獨(dú)特的憲法安排：沒有成文憲法，厄斯金•梅(Erskine May)的《議會慣例》(A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament)僅僅是一份寫于1844年、之后不斷更新再版的非正式指南。

Britain has diverged from its European neighbours over the centuries. No one denies that English kings have occasionally exercised great power on the continent (though never as kings of England, but as separately constituted dukes of Normandy or electors of Hanover). David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has cited the great battles of Blenheim, Trafalgar and Waterloo as signs that Britain has played its part on the continent; but these were triumphant moments in bitter wars, not exactly an example to follow in the Europe of the future. Edmund Burke’s prescription of evolution, not revolution, set out in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, expressed the true temper of the nation.

數(shù)個世紀(jì)以來，英國與其歐洲鄰國走的都不是一條路。沒人會否認(rèn)英國的國王偶爾也在歐洲大陸上行使大權(quán)(盡管從來都不是以英格蘭國王的身份，而是以諾曼底公爵或者漢諾威選帝侯的身份)。英國首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)曾經(jīng)援引布倫海姆(Blenheim)戰(zhàn)役、特拉法加(Trafalgar)海戰(zhàn)和滑鐵盧(Waterloo)戰(zhàn)役，作為英國在歐洲大陸發(fā)揮作用的例證;但這些都是在惡戰(zhàn)中的勝利時刻，并不能作為在未來的歐洲可以效仿的例子。埃德蒙•柏克(Edmund Burke)在《法國革命論》(Reflections on the Revolution in France)中為演變、而非革命開出的處方，體現(xiàn)了這個國家的真實性情。

Certainly, England has had its violent civil wars, notably in the 15th and 17th centuries, as well as unrest in the 19th century. Overall, though, an unusually stable polity evolved that defied the predictions of Marx and Engels that the first industrial nation would become the first revolutionary nation. Fascism had little purchase here, and the far left has until recently exercised little influence.

當(dāng)然，英國也曾經(jīng)歷過激烈的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，尤其是在15世紀(jì)和17世紀(jì)，在19世紀(jì)還曾發(fā)生過動亂。然而，英國整體上是一個異常穩(wěn)定的政體，其演變打破了馬克思(Marx)和恩格斯(Engels)關(guān)于第一個工業(yè)國家將成為第一個革命國家的預(yù)言。法西斯主義在這里幾乎沒有市場，極左翼的影響力在不久以前都微乎其微。

Those who argue that the EU has brought us valuable legislation governing working conditions (though the working time directive has caused as many difficulties as it has resolved) need to show more confidence in the ability of our own government to introduce such laws, better framed and more closely adapted to the needs of this particular country. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by European legislation that overrides our own laws. A vote to leave is a vote for democracy.

那些主張歐盟給我們帶來了關(guān)于規(guī)范勞動條件(盡管工作時間指令引起的困難和其解決的困難一樣多)的寶貴立法的人，應(yīng)該對我們本國政府有能力引入更完善、更貼合本國需求的類似法律展現(xiàn)出更多的信心。我們不能受治于凌駕在本國法律之上的歐洲法規(guī)。為退歐投票就是為民主投票。